Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers
Date
Msg-id 20200130204536.GA2378@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
Re: standby apply lag on inactive servers  (Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-Jan-30, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:

> Agreed about backbranches. I'd like to preserve the word "transaction"
> as it is more familiar to users. How about something like the follows?
> 
> "transactions are completed up to log time %s"

That's a good point.  I used the phrase "transaction activity", which
seems sufficiently explicit to me.

So, the attached is the one for master; in back branches I would use the
same (plus minor conflict fixes), except that I would drop the message
wording changes.

Thanks for the reviews so far,

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Melanie Plageman
Date:
Subject: Re: BufFileRead() error signalling
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Hash join not finding which collation to use for string hashing